The horse is dead. Beating it won't help.
I think we've expressed our opinions thoroughly on this. I don't have time to read the report through, I content that you have interpreted the commissions opinions correctly.
I'm also content that you're wrong about the Administrations intentions. I have noticed many differences in what the media reports about the proposal and what the proposal states. I have read through the original proposal, as envisioned by the Cato Institute. I have not read whatever was proposed by the President, which I understand is based on the original, but differs somewhat. The President's proposal, as submitted to the two houses of Congress, will likely differ somewhat from his original proposal, and will be amended ad nauseum as it progresses from committee to house floor to full vote.
If the bills make it through the houses, a joint bill will have to be drafted, which will likely differ from both of the original measures. This will then be voted on and sent to the President for a signature. We're a long way from there.
I have read that some of the sponsors of the bill, reported by the media as "backing off of there support for bill", have in fact stated that this is false. The report came about because they were critical of the manner in which the President is selling the bill, not critical of the bill. In particular, they were upset that the President and the media were focusing on the private accounts aspect of the measure, which they veiw as only a small part of the total package. Private accounts alone, they point out, will not save the program.
Of course, neither will doing nothing.
I'm glad you're passionate about these issues, even if I think you're wrong. Write, if you must, to oppose the bill. Write, if you must, to support reforms you approve of, if there be any.
I will support or oppose those measures I'm passionate about, as well.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.